1. Change in schedule… Website currently says…  August 5 th – first draft  August 19 th – second draft Lets have instead…  August 19 th – first draft

2. (5) Other calculations and tables/graphs

3. Overall Strategy (1) Average ES  In-text: Average, range, total number Heterogeneity Fail-safe N Unweighted (and difference test to weighted) Outliers (and difference test to weighted after removing outliers)  Charts/Tables: Descending order Stem-and-leaf Funnel Plot Boxplot

4. (1) Average ES: in-text The average weighted effect size was.1221 (CI =.1139,.1302, z = 29.07, p <.001). The range of effect sizes is.78 to -.61 across 296 total effect sizes. The heterogeneity test for the weighted effect size was significant (Qw (293) = 1145.87, p <.001), indicating that there was substantial variation within the weighted effect sizes.

5. Table: Descending order of ES

6. Chart: Stem-and-leaf

7. (1) Average ES: in-text A fail-safe N was calculated to ascertain the number of new, unpublished, or unretrieved studies required to reduce the significance of this averaged effect size to non-signifcance (Rosenthal, 1991), fail-safe N = 108,195. page 104-105 for Rosenthal, 1991

8. (1) Average ES: in-text A fail-safe N can also be calculated to ascertain the number of new, unpublished, or unretrieved studies required to reduce this averaged effect size to a specific level (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001). To reduce the averaged effect size to a specified level of.1, the fail-safe N = 65, which indicates that it would take an additional 65 studies with an effect size of 0 to reduce the current meta- analyzed effect size of.1221 to.1. To reduce the average effect size to a specified level of.05, the fail-safe N = 424. To reduce the average effect size all the way to 0, the fail-safe N = 358,680. Page 166 of Lipsey/Wilson

9. (1) Average ES: in-text Unweighted  “The unweighted effect size average is.1451 (CI =.1339,.1563, z = 25.14, p <.001). “ Difference Test to Weighted  “The test of the differences between the two dependent effect sizes was non-significant, z =.41, p =.69. In other words, the weighted effect size was not influenced by particular sample sizes that were extremely large or small. “  http://faculty.vassar.edu/lowry/rpop.html http://faculty.vassar.edu/lowry/rpop.html

10. Chart: Funnel Plot

11. (1) Average ES: in-text Outlier analysis  “Outlier analysis determines the existence of extreme effect sizes, as compared to the analysis above which tested the influence of extreme sample sizes. Chart 3 shows the boxplot for the weighted effect sizes.”  “Eliminating the outliers produces a weighted effect size of.1137 (CI =.1054,.1219, z = 26.89, p <.001).” Difference test to weighted after removing outliers  “The test of the differences between the weighted effect sizes with and without the outliers was non-significant, z =.15, p =.88. Thus, the weighted effect size was not significantly influenced by outliers.”

12. Chart: Boxplot

13. Overall Strategy (2) Moderators  In-text: Interpreting the data and comparing/contrasting  Charts/Tables: ES of Moderators Categorical Moderator Data Continuous Moderator Data 95% Error Bar Chart Multivariate Data

14. Table: Groupings of the ES

15. Table: Moderators

16. Chart: Error bars (95% CI)

17. Table: Multivariate